Enola L.,1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 18, 2019

2019003486 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 18, 2019)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Enola L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Robert Wilkie,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.

Request No. 2019003486

Appeal No. 0120182554

Agency No. 200P-0662-2017104425

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Enola L. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No.
0120182554 (Mar. 5, 2019). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), where the requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the appellate decision will
have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.405(c).

Complainant, a Security Assistant at the Agency's Police Department in San Francisco, California,
filed a formal complaint alleging that she was discriminated against based on her national origin
(Chinese) and disability when:

1. Complainant received conflicting information regarding the contract award ratification
process;

2. Complainant was required to complete contract ratification training;

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
2019003486

2
3. Complainant was confronted about previously completed contract ratification
paperwork; and

4. Complainant was issued a memorandum requesting ratification of an unauthorized
contract commitment, which stated she had been counseled on the contract ratification
process.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a final agency decision. In the decision, the
Agency found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination. In our previous
decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s decision. Therein, we determined that the
Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the
record demonstrated that an incident, which was deemed no fault of Complainant, occurred in the
workplace. The Chief and Contracting Officer resolved to rectify the issue. This action involved
drafting a memorandum to acknowledge the situation and to have the Chief and Complainant
undergo a one-hour training course. The Chief acknowledged Complainant's statements that she
was not at fault and defended her actions to the Contracting Officer. At no point was Complainant
ever facing disciplinary actions for her work. In fact, the Chief made it clear in the final memo
that Complainant completed her tasks as expected, and that she did not act inappropriately in any
manner.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates her argument on appeal that the
Agency’s explanation that she had made an unauthorized commitment to a contractor does not
carry weight because she merely did as she was instructed and had followed the process for
committing funds. According to Complainant, “[i]t appears that Complainant has been caught in
the middle of a dispute between the Agency and the vendor with the Agency blaming Complainant
in order to justify their side of the dispute.”

The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18
(Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20,
2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a
substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not
done so here. We find that Complainant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the appellate decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law or will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has
failed to demonstrate that the Commission should reconsider its appellate decision.

After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request
fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to
DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120182554 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

2019003486

3
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal
from the Commission’s decision. You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision.
If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the
official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and
official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or
“department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in
which you work.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

September 18, 2019
Date